Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-01031-APG-PAL
07-13-2017
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
I previously entered three orders requiring the defendants to properly identify the citizenship of all parties, so that I could evaluate whether this court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over this case. ECF Nos. 6, 9, 12. The defendants have failed to respond to my last order and have failed to demonstrate that the parties to this case are diverse.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). "A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Res., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). Thus, courts "strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus, Inc., 980 F.2d at 566. "The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id. Remand is required if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); see also Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election Comm'n, 469 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir. 2006) ("remand may be ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for 'any defect' in the removal procedure").
Because the defendants have not met their burden of establishing the diversity of the citizenship of the parties to this case, I must remand this action to state court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the case is remanded to the state court from which it was removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case.
Dated: July 13, 2017.
/s/_________
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE